The Gulf nation to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."